Tankisi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be refused where the lower tribunal’s factual findings sufficiently support its conclusion under any relevant country guidance. This remains so where the tribunal did not set out the guidance it applied, provided no material failure to apply the relevant guidance is identified. A later country-guidance decision does not require reconsideration where the existing findings could not affect the outcome. A delay issue need not be determined where the substantive merits provide no basis for permission.

The appellant, a Turkish citizen, claimed asylum based on alleged persecution connected with his family’s PKK sympathies and his own detention and maltreatment. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 27 January 2003, applying Polat v Secretary of State [2002] UKIAT 04332. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal upheld that conclusion in a decision notified on 12 September 2004, referring to the current understanding of the situation. Permission was sought from the Court of Appeal. A later country-guidance decision, IK [2004] UKIAT 00312, had prompted reconsideration. The central issue was whether the appeal had any realistic prospect of success.

Application dismissed. The court ordered a legal aid assessment.

1. The fact that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal did not set out the country guidance which it understood to be applicable did not justify permission to appeal. Counsel could not identify any aspect of the relevant guidance which the Tribunal had failed properly to apply.
2. The Tribunal’s factual findings were sufficient to support its conclusion under any relevant guidance promulgated in the preceding two years. The appellant had no continuing personal interest to the Turkish authorities: his detentions related to a school incident, a demonstration at which many people were arrested, and an incident concerning his brother. After the last incident he remained at home for a year without further official interest. The incident was approximately six years old, and his parents and siblings remained in Turkey without apparent problems.
3. The later decision in IK [2004] UKIAT 00312 supplied updated country guidance and had led to an opportunity for review. However, the factual findings were sufficient under any relevant guidance, so there was no ground on which the Court of Appeal would be likely to allow an appeal.
4. The court therefore found it unnecessary to decide the separate issue of delay in lodging the application for permission, notwithstanding an explanation based on difficulties obtaining legal aid.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 12 April 2005, dismissed the application for permission to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: By a decision notified on 12 September 2004, upheld the adjudicator’s dismissal of the asylum appeal.
3. Adjudicator: On 27 January 2003, dismissed the appellant’s asylum appeal, applying Polat v Secretary of State [2002] UKIAT 04332.